Mumbai Court October 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
il and Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. Birla Perucchini Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR334; [2004]121CompCas335(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ131(Bom); [2003]47SCL426(Bom)
1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.2. In these proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the following reliefs have been prayed for and urged before this Court in the submissions :(i) An injunction restraining the first respondent, from giving effect to or acting upon the resignation tendered by the second, third and fourth respondents from the board of directors of the first respondent;(ii) An injunction restraining the first respondent, from giving effect to the resolution of the board of directors dated 20th August 2002 purporting to appoint the fifth and sixth respondents as directors of the first respondent; and(iii) An injunction restraining the first respondent, from acting upon the resolution dated 6th September 2002 of the board of directors purporting to pass the annual accounts of the first respondent.3. A subscription-cum-shareholders' agreement was entered into on 25th March 200...
In Re: Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Parimahal H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR795
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for winding up of the respondent company under section 439 read with sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and for appointment of Official Liquidator as provided thereunder. The petitioner company has sought for the aforesaid directions alleging failure on the part of the company to pay its alleged debt to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 52,22,114/-. 2. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioner company had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 crores with the respondent company in the portfolio management scheme. The petitioner company had also paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards service charges. It is an admitted position that the respondent company refunded a sum of Rs. 2 crores and requested the petitioners to continue the said portfolio deposit in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 3 crores for a further period of one year. The said relationship between the two began in February 1993 and the refund of Rs. 2 crores ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Sai Sales Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT152Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of video unit for the computer imported by the respondent.The department sought to enhance the value of these goods which were manufactured in Indonesia, with the goods of similar specifications that were manufactured at Taiwan which had been imported at about the same time at a higher price. In the order passed by him, the Assistant Commissioner applied to these goods, the value at which the goods imported from Taiwan were declared. On appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) found incorrect the applicability of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules; he said that rule could not be applied because it provides for valuation of identical goods. That the goods imported from Indonesia did not satisfy the requirement contained in the definition of "identical goods" of being manufactured in the same country, as the goods being valued. He therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the Additional Collector's orde...
Electro Pneumatics and Hydraulics Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai
2. In the order impugned in the appeal 2526/02, the Commissioner has held that the notional interest i.e. the interest not actually incurred or paid on the advances that the appellant took towards the price of the goods that it manufactured and sold from their intending purchasers must form part of the assessable value.3. The reason that the Commissioner advances is that the appellant by obtaining these advances had reduced its financial borrowing and therefore reduces its interest liability. He dismisses the contention that the appellant raised before him that the reasons for taking the advances was to safeguard itself against cancellation of orders by its purchasers on tailor made goods which would otherwise have borrowed from the market by observing that the same object could have been achieved by taking bank guarantee.4. The question in this appeal has been decided time and again. The Commissioner himself records 16 orders of the Courts and Tribunal cited before him by the appella...
Mine Aid Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT325Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 3.75 crores and a penalty of Rs. 47 lakhs.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the finding that the rapid hardening cement that the applicant manufactures is classifiable in sub heading 90 of heading 2502.00 of the Tariff and not as claimed by the assessee, in sub heading 29.3. Sub-heading 29 of heading 2502.00 is for portland cement other than the type mentioned in sub heading 21 sub heading 19 is for others. The dispute therefore essentially is whether the product cement portland cement, any other kind of cement. Its composition is stated to be as follows : portland cement 70%, high alumina cement 15%, nonferric alum 5%, gypsum 5% 4. We are not at this stage influenced by the contention that the Board in an order passed, which was in force at the relevant time, ordered classification of the product specifically manufactured by the applicant in sub heading 29. It is debatable whether this order can be conside...
Shaikh Jabbar Abbas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR734; 2003(2)BomCR159; 2003BomCR(Cri)662; (2003)1BOMLR237; [2003(96)FLR606]; 2003(1)MhLj543
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The matter was posted today for confirmation of interim relief but in the light of the objection taken by the respondents that petitioner has adequate and efficacious remedy of challenging the order of reversion before the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'Act of 1985'), we thought it fit and proper to decide the writ petition finally.2. The petitioner principally is aggrieved by the order dated 27-6-2002 whereby he had been reverted from the post of junior clerk to the post of Helper/Khalasi. The said order dated 27-6-2002 seems to be based on the order of the Tribunal dated 13-12-2001 passed in Original Application No. 945/1977 in which petitioner was not party. The petitioner challenges the said order of Tribunal passed on 13-12-2001 as well before us.3. By office order dated 7-6-1996 the petitioner who was working as Helper/Khalasi and had already empanelled as office clerk was promot...
Ramlal Ratanlal Anjana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)740; (2003)1BOMLR472; 2003CriLJ1976; 2003(1)MhLj581
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the uncle of the detenu by name Ajay Singh Maganlal Anjana challenging the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act by the respondent No. 2.2. The impugned order of detention was issued on 18-12-2001 by the respondent No. 2 and the same was executed and the detenu was taken into custody on the same day. The detenu was arrested under the provisions of the NDPS Act in Case No. 109 of 2001 on 14th June 2001 along with two other co-accused for being found in possession of 5 Kgs. of heroin. While he was in custody, the impugned order of detention was issued and the detenu was detained under the preventive detention from 18-12-2001.3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of detention on various grounds. However, the petition can be disposed of on the ground of non-application of mind as according to the petitioner, the Detaining Authority did not have any material before itself on the basis of whic...
Veetrag Investments and Finance Company Vs. Premier Brass and Metal Wo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom217; 2003(1)ALLMR493; 2003(2)BomCR812; 2003BomCR(Cri)521; 2003(1)MhLj458
ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Chamber Summons is to set aside the attachment levied pursuant to a warrant of attachment dated 17th November, 2000 in so far as it relates to the goodwill and suit premises and incidental reliefs.2. On 16th February, 2002 the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs.24,00,000/- with Interest at 36% per annum from the date of the promissory note on which the suit was filed i.e. 3-11-1994 till the date of filing of the suit and further interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation on the sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- along with costs.3. On 17-11-2000 a warrant of attachment was issued by this Court. The Plaintiff had applied for execution of the decree by attachment of the moveable property belonging to and in the possession of the Defendant including the Defendant's right, title and interest in the goodwill of the business together with tenancy rights of the said business as a going concern. The attachment in respect thereof was levied on 12th Dece...
Shankar Y. Gavli Vs. Vishakha Sadan Co-operative Housing Society and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR519; 2003(2)BomCR790
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Mr. Gawde waives notice for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has been served with notice indicating that the matter will be finally disposed of at notice stage but none appears. Heard forthwith for final disposal.2. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the common order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai dated March 30, 2001 in Appeal No. 80 of 2000 and Appeal No. 27 of 2001. Briefly stated, the petitioner had filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against the respondents. In the said dispute, as it stood amended, following reliefs were claimed:---'a) The respondent No. 2 has no right to represent the society i.e. Vishakha Sadan Co-operative Housing Society,b) For permanent injunction from this Hon'ble Court restraining the respondents from entering into the contract with the builder or developer for the purpose of developing the...
Jagdishprasad M. Joshi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Bom)10; [2005]273ITR296(Bom)
1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.2. On March 14, 2002, search and seizure operations were conducted by the Department under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the office premises, residential premises and factories of the petitioner. Prohibitory orders were also issued on the industrial undertaking of the petitioners at Silvassa and also on the office premises. Under the prohibitory orders, the bank accounts were attached, bonds were seized and FDs were also seized. However, during the period March to May 2002, respondent No. 1 encashed the FDs and Rs. 72,40,330 from the bank account of the petitioner in the State Bank of India, Powai. Hereto annexed and marked as annexure I is a statement giving particulars of encashment of FDs, withdrawal of cash, seizure of bonds and seizure of FDs.3. In this writ petition, we are not concerned with the question whether the petitioner has undisclosed income. Wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »